Forgetting the past

Most political discussions among politicians of different parties are based on quoting events that took place years ago. By rummaging through the past, arguments about the real episodes are presented to support one’s current viewpoint. When discussing miscarriage of justice, the famous case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s hanging is invariably quoted. Even the chief justice who passed the judgement later agreed that he was compelled to make the reprehensible decision to hang Mr Bhutto.

On a much larger scale, a similar situation exists between various countries. On grounds made up or real, one country might have charged against its neighbouring country years ago, and the enmity turned permanent. Pakistan vs India’s case is on point. As a result of Partition, both countries separated geographically in 1947, but both consider each other arch-rivals. And both spend huge amounts on their defence budgets while poverty looms large in both countries. More than 40 per cent of our population lives below the poverty line while tens of thousands of Indians permanently sleep on footpaths and many defecate in the open in public view.

Among the homeless Indian citizens sleeping on the streets are migrant workers from neighbouring states. They leave their families behind to move to cities to earn a living. Sleeping in the open saves them the cost of renting a place. It is difficult for most of them to afford accommodation with their low wages. Even though the argument I now intend to offer may look preposterous, but how does a country justify buying missiles and Rafale aircraft and drones when a huge number of its citizens permanently live on footpaths to sustain themselves and their families?

One would sound a pacifist when writing these lines, but pacifism is nothing new. Bertrand Russell was a known pacifist who even suffered imprisonment for his views. Though he might have had different reasons against countries going into wars, while I hold that countries whose millions of citizens live below the poverty line, and in another case, millions perpetually sleep on footpaths, may like to reconsider their mutual enmity. In the present scenario, India is to blame for launching a preemptive strike against Pakistan by blaming it for orchestrating an attack on tourists in Pahalgam.

Hunger does not mean missing one meal; it means never having enough to eat. It reminds one of what Khushwant Singh wrote in his popular book 'Truth, Love & a Little Malice': “…hunger means a situation in which you are always wondering where the next meal is coming from or even if there will be a next meal.” He surely had the poverty situation of his country in view when writing these lines.

It is the moral duty of the fabulously wealthy countries to help poorer nations financially. Some countries in the world have nearly no enemies. For instance, Sweden, Switzerland, and New Zealand are known for having no adversaries sharing their borders, and these countries do not maintain large fighting forces. The last military conflict in which Switzerland was involved was in 1815. Thereafter, it has maintained neutrality and wide-ranging diplomatic relations with many countries. It has also hosted negotiations between international organisations.

As a main advantage, the people of the countries mentioned above live peacefully and enjoy a high standard of living. Their governments don’t need to keep them in a state of constant anxiety and fear of their neighbours. Thus, the state of mind of such nations helps them to realise their full potential to progress and maintain positive thinking for the future.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore. He can be reached at: pinecity@gmail.com